Promises on Torture Don't Work
4The British government has said it is seeking "diplomatic
assurances" that terrorism suspects deported to their home countries
will not be tortured there. It argues that, on receipt of such
assurances, the men-many of whom have been held without trial for
more than two years-could safely be deported. But experience shows
that these assurances are an ineffective safeguard against torture,
Human Rights Watch said today.
"The British government argues assurances that the men will not be
tortured will allow it to deport these men safely," said Holly
Cartner, executive director of Human Rights Watch's Europe and
Central Asia division. "That is wrong. The governments concerned
often have a long history of systematic torture. The British
position is moral abdication-there is a real risk that the men will
be tortured if they are returned, whatever promises their home
governments may offer."
The government's plans came to light during a historic legal
challenge in the House of Lords to government powers that enable
foreign nationals suspected of involvement in international
terrorism to be indefinitely detained without charge or trial. To
introduce the powers, Britain had to suspend ("derogate from") part
of its obligations under human rights law. The 11 men currently
subject to indefinite detention under the Anti-Terrorism Crime and
Security Act 2001 cannot be deported because the government accepts
that there is a real risk they would be tortured if returned to
their home countries. (One detainee is a stateless Palestinian).
Torture is prohibited absolutely under article 3 of the European
Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into UK law by the Human
Rights Act 1998. There are no exceptions allowed, even during times
of war or public emergency. The government argues that by obtaining
assurances from the men's home countries that they would not be
tortured "some or all of the [men] may thus become returnable
without risking Article 3 treatment."
Experience shows that the use of such assurances is an insufficient
safeguard against torture and ill-treatment, Human Rights Watch
said. The government in Sweden relied on diplomatic assurances in
the case of two Egyptian nationals wanted in their home countries on
terrorism charges. The men-Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed al-Zari- were
transferred to Egypt on a US-government-leased aircraft in December
2001 following assurances from the Egyptian government that both men
would be given fair trials and not tortured. There is credible
evidence that both men were subject to torture and ill-treatment
upon return. Ahmed Agiza was convicted and sentenced to 15 years of
hard labor by a military security court following an unfair trial
monitored by Human Rights Watch. His case will be considered by the
UN Committee Against Torture in November.
"The Swedish cases show that diplomatic assurances in torture cases
do not work" said Cartner. "Britain has a cast-iron duty not to
expose people to torture at home or abroad."
Source: Human Rights Watch
6 October 2004 |
%20enjoins%20justice.gif)
